IMB Report on Huntercombe Prison

The Independent Monitoring Board for Huntercombe Prison has recently reported to the Secretary of State on the prison. What it said was:

"Overall, the Board considers the prison to be well run; management, staff and contractors collaborate and work well together. Prisoners seem relatively content with the regime; there are few violent incidents, relative to the total prison estate. The prison works hard to deal fairly with prisoner complaints; the number of applications to the IMB has continued to fall."

This assessment of the prison accords with my own view. I have visited the prison on two occasions during the year. What I said was:

"I have taken a great interest in the performance of the prison. I have discussed with the Governor how the prison operates and seen for myself some of the issues in the prison. I have also spoken to prison officers who do a very good job at the prison. They are currently concerned with a number of terms and conditions issues including pensions, the age of retirement and their impact on promotion. I am grateful to them for providing me with individual case studies. I am pleased that steps have already been taken to deal with the issues the report raises."

The main issue to affect the prison during the reporting year was a Death in Custody; the first in the establishment's 70-year history. Due to staffing levels, it remains a challenge to recruit enough Assessment Care in Custody Teamwork (ACCT) Assessors. However, there is confidence that good and effective work is done. The IMB is content that the 'Duty of Care' within the establishment is good in this respect. A major area of concern is the difference between the repatriation process and deportation process and the impact on the individual prisoner.

The issues identified by the IMB include ensuring all prisoners receiving repatriation paperwork have a Risk Assessment completed and ensure the communication between the Offender Management Unit and all other staff concerning those prisoners receiving repatriation paperwork is effectively developed.

The Prison Act 1952 requires every prison to be monitored by an independent Board appointed by the Secretary of State from members of the community in which the prison or centre is situated. The Board has to satisfy itself, amongst other things, as to the humane and just treatment of those held in custody within its prison and the range and adequacy of the programmes preparing them for release.

I added:

"I congratulate the Governor and staff on running a good prison and I applaud the system of prison mentors who are themselves prisoners, some of whom I have met. I take on board the comments made by the IMB on the difference between the repatriation process and deportation process and the impact on the individual prisoner."